Systematic Literature Review — Final Report with Data Extraction and Synthesis
A Research Methods final report at postgraduate computer science level is a systematic literature review written to a defined protocol. Unlike an essay, the method itself is assessed: markers re-run the student's search string and check that the number of papers returned matches what the report claims, so the process must be reproducible rather than merely described. The report is typically built in five chapters. Chapter 1 introduces the research area and states that a literature review is the chosen method. Chapter 2 gives the background, with citations behind every claim or assertion. Chapter 3 sets out the research protocol — the research question decomposed through PICO (population, intervention, comparison, outcome), the search string, and explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria. Chapter 4 presents the results: a data extraction table holding direct quotations and references from each included paper, followed by a data synthesis table that groups those extractions into cross-cutting themes. Chapter 5 concludes by answering the research question from the Chapter 4 evidence alone. Several requirements catch students out. The word limit applies to the main body only — tables, figures, references and appendices sit outside it, which changes how the argument should be distributed. Screenshots and supplementary search strings belong in appendices, not the body. Where an interim report has already been submitted and marked, the final report must visibly incorporate that formative feedback rather than reproduce the earlier chapters unchanged. File naming and file completeness are often mark-bearing in their own right, with missing files scored at zero. Presentation carries weight too: consistent heading and font usage, labelled tables and figures, and error-free spelling and punctuation. The most common conceptual error is treating Chapter 4 as a narrative summary of each paper in turn. A synthesis groups evidence by theme across papers and answers the question; a summary walks through the reading list. A related error is a research question that the background has not motivated — the introduction and background should make the question feel necessary before the protocol formalises it. Our support on assessments of this type is guidance-based. Typical areas of help include: explaining how to decompose a research question using PICO, reviewing whether a search string is syntactically valid and whether inclusion criteria genuinely follow from the question, showing how extraction tables feed into synthesis tables, clarifying Harvard referencing conventions, checking report structure and formatting against the specification, and reviewing a completed draft against the published marking criteria before submission.
Read Model Answer →